If someone comes to you and says "I need you to sell me a system which we can use to track and arrest dissidents"
What if someone wants to buy shoes "so they can track and arrest dissidents"? Or lunch so they can keep up their dissident-tracking strength?
I guess selling shoes or food is wrong too? But it only matters if there's a way to get a big unearned payday from the shoe-seller. No payday, no moral outrage.
Is it "freedom" to try to tell Cisco -- retroactively -- who they can and can't do business with? Shouldn't Cisco be free to sell electronic equipment to whomever will pay? Should Cisco be neutral and sell to everyone, or should Cisco discriminate? Why is this any of this the EFF's business at all?
It's endless. There will always be people who demand money because of some grievance or another. Because actually earning money is much more difficult than telling a sob story.
The question is, why should the rest of us keep going along with the endless demands? Because we think someday it will be our turn to get a big unearned payday? Because... envy?
Gun regulation is just like every other Western Democracy that has gun regulation. The sky hasn't fallen on their heads, what makes you think you are different?
Wow, you're right! European countries control gun ownership, and European governments have never hurt anyone in their entire history. That's some great insight. Thanks.
The opposite position on the left is equally incoherent. A government that's absolutely trusted to confiscate everyone's guns but can't be trusted with information. Plus law enforcement that's systematically racist, but for some reason should be empowered to seize guns from peaceful citizens, including minorities -- as if that were "justice" and wouldn't cause violent confrontations.
"So Rubio's foreign policy and national security strategy is to invade Middle Eastern countries, create power vacuums for terrorist organizations, allow their people to come to America unvetted, give them legal status and citizenship, then impose a massive surveillance state to monitor the problem,”... “I'm trying to figure out if it is more incoherent than dangerous or vice versa.”
Human problems don't generally have something that's "the answer". You can't just turn a person off and back on. All of the "solutions" are usually bad in some way.
No one is even trying to avoid mass shootings. These gun restrictions don't work and everyone knows it. But playing the game brings in the political contributions.
If the President wanted to help, he could try to have empathy for the half of America who didn't vote for him. He could try to compromise, meet people halfway, and solve some problems. Instead he mocks, grandstands, sends out the Federals after people who made mistakes or who oppose him politically, and defies the laws he is pledged to uphold.
He's supposed to be the President of all Americans, not an internet troll. Unfortunately, Trump won't be much different in this regard. We need leaders who will try to bring people together.
Why do some people like beer and others don't? Because people like different things. It would be bizarre if we all had the same preferences.
Also, when you need a gun, there's usually no good substitute. When someone is trying to take away your guns, that's one of the times when you need them a lot.
They've largely given up on the doomsday talk anyway. These days they just say the word "deniers" as a way to establish their tribal identity and then talk about something else, like how they just got back from another ski trip to Europe, or how they're going to start leaving the Land Rover at home and they'll be commuting to work in their new Tesla Model S.
tell dramatic stories about a dramatic future. Stories about a future where a guy goes to work and installs software on computers for an insurance company don't get made into movies.
And Hollywood continues to turn out lots of bland, unimaginative, formulaic movies that are less and less compelling relative to TV and video games.
They probably should, just for PR reasons. Then the next time this happens, they can put out a statement saying essentially "Don't look at us. This moron told his kid his password AND told his kid his credit card number."
Allow? You want to institute game police and stage armed raids on programmers?
When you try to dictate what other people are "allowed" to do, that always means police, raids, trials, and prisons. Breaking into a person's house, hauling them away in chains, and holding them for years in a prison cell is a really evil thing to do to someone. Let's save that for when it's really necessary.
As a python programmer for 15 years, I've never had a bug caused by indentation changing the logic.
"It's never been a problem for me" is not an argument in favor of anyone using it except you.
"My plan/software/language has a zillion failure modes and hidden quirks, but I have them all memorized and they don't cause me problems. Let's roll this out to the general public."
Slashdot Mirror
More to the point, how would it be the EFF's concern either way?
That's the point in judging moral behavior. Knowledge and intent, matter.
But getting a big unearned payday from suing is what really matters.
If someone comes to you and says "I need you to sell me a system which we can use to track and arrest dissidents"
What if someone wants to buy shoes "so they can track and arrest dissidents"? Or lunch so they can keep up their dissident-tracking strength?
I guess selling shoes or food is wrong too? But it only matters if there's a way to get a big unearned payday from the shoe-seller. No payday, no moral outrage.
Is it "freedom" to try to tell Cisco -- retroactively -- who they can and can't do business with? Shouldn't Cisco be free to sell electronic equipment to whomever will pay? Should Cisco be neutral and sell to everyone, or should Cisco discriminate? Why is this any of this the EFF's business at all?
It's endless. There will always be people who demand money because of some grievance or another. Because actually earning money is much more difficult than telling a sob story.
The question is, why should the rest of us keep going along with the endless demands? Because we think someday it will be our turn to get a big unearned payday? Because ... envy?
You're the one said Europe was a success for gun control.
Or did you mean another Western Democracy, like Mexico: absolute gun control, well known as a super-duper safe place to visit?
Make nickels out of plastic, dimes out of soft felt, and quarters out of bone.
Gun regulation is just like every other Western Democracy that has gun regulation. The sky hasn't fallen on their heads, what makes you think you are different?
Wow, you're right! European countries control gun ownership, and European governments have never hurt anyone in their entire history. That's some great insight. Thanks.
And the NSA only wants to monitor terrorists. Not you. Trust them. Don't be paranoid.
Rubio should just say: "If you like your privacy, you can keep your privacy. Period."
But generally gun nuts act like, well, gun nuts and overreact before anything is actually done or likely to be done...
But generally [privacy] nuts act like, well, [privacy] nuts and overreact before anything is actually done or likely to be done.
You personal gun will never be effective against a nation state, they have tanks.
Your private phone conversations will never be effective against a nation state, they have tanks.
Some list of guns that varies from one day to the next and one leftist to another. But your guns will be completely safe. Trust us. Don't be paranoid.
"If you like your guns, you can keep your guns. Period."
The opposite position on the left is equally incoherent. A government that's absolutely trusted to confiscate everyone's guns but can't be trusted with information. Plus law enforcement that's systematically racist, but for some reason should be empowered to seize guns from peaceful citizens, including minorities -- as if that were "justice" and wouldn't cause violent confrontations.
They've said this about Rubio:
"So Rubio's foreign policy and national security strategy is to invade Middle Eastern countries, create power vacuums for terrorist organizations, allow their people to come to America unvetted, give them legal status and citizenship, then impose a massive surveillance state to monitor the problem,” ... “I'm trying to figure out if it is more incoherent than dangerous or vice versa.”
Human problems don't generally have something that's "the answer". You can't just turn a person off and back on. All of the "solutions" are usually bad in some way.
No one is even trying to avoid mass shootings. These gun restrictions don't work and everyone knows it. But playing the game brings in the political contributions.
If the President wanted to help, he could try to have empathy for the half of America who didn't vote for him. He could try to compromise, meet people halfway, and solve some problems. Instead he mocks, grandstands, sends out the Federals after people who made mistakes or who oppose him politically, and defies the laws he is pledged to uphold.
He's supposed to be the President of all Americans, not an internet troll. Unfortunately, Trump won't be much different in this regard. We need leaders who will try to bring people together.
What will they put in there for mental illness ?
"Anonymous informant reported odd behavior"
How about if we give people due process before we start taking away their civil rights?
Why do some people like beer and others don't? Because people like different things. It would be bizarre if we all had the same preferences.
Also, when you need a gun, there's usually no good substitute. When someone is trying to take away your guns, that's one of the times when you need them a lot.
They've largely given up on the doomsday talk anyway. These days they just say the word "deniers" as a way to establish their tribal identity and then talk about something else, like how they just got back from another ski trip to Europe, or how they're going to start leaving the Land Rover at home and they'll be commuting to work in their new Tesla Model S.
On Jan 25th, 2016 "the world will reach a point of no return". It's not next week, it's 3 weeks from now.
tell dramatic stories about a dramatic future. Stories about a future where a guy goes to work and installs software on computers for an insurance company don't get made into movies.
And Hollywood continues to turn out lots of bland, unimaginative, formulaic movies that are less and less compelling relative to TV and video games.
They probably should, just for PR reasons. Then the next time this happens, they can put out a statement saying essentially "Don't look at us. This moron told his kid his password AND told his kid his credit card number."
Allow? You want to institute game police and stage armed raids on programmers?
When you try to dictate what other people are "allowed" to do, that always means police, raids, trials, and prisons. Breaking into a person's house, hauling them away in chains, and holding them for years in a prison cell is a really evil thing to do to someone. Let's save that for when it's really necessary.
As a python programmer for 15 years, I've never had a bug caused by indentation changing the logic.
"It's never been a problem for me" is not an argument in favor of anyone using it except you.
"My plan/software/language has a zillion failure modes and hidden quirks, but I have them all memorized and they don't cause me problems. Let's roll this out to the general public."
It has DVD in the name. Therefore, it is more backward compatible with DVDs, in the same way Blu-Ray is more compatible with Bluetooth.